Handwritten letters
Robin Bignall
working classes from Robert Crampton in today's Times. To the middle
classes a handwritten note means one has paid personal attention to a
matter, whereas the working classes put out a handwritten note to the
milkman and think something more formal should be typed or printed.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/robert_crampton/article6910135.ece
http://tinyurl.com/y9ahhbj
--
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England
tony cooper
Drifting a bit...my daughter (who does not live in this area) recently
complained - mildly - that I never send her letters anymore. When she
was in college, I'd write her at least once a week. I've never been
one to write about daily events, and would write minor essays -
intended as humorous - on subjects that came to mind.
I pointed out that I send her emails of the same sort, and sometimes
more often than once a week. Emails are not the same, she says. A
letter to be picked up in the hand and read, and then put away to be
read later, is a real thing. She's kept all those letters.
I typed those letters.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
James Silverton
My handwriting is pretty illegible and I keep it for greetings cards and
condolences. Even for the latter, I will compose the note with a word
processor and then copy it after finding my ink fountain pen.
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
Don Phillipson
news:3spjf5hq2s3ag4mb6...@4ax.com...
> Drifting a bit...my daughter (who does not live in this area) recently
> complained - mildly - that I never send her letters anymore. When she
> was in college, I'd write her at least once a week. I've never been
> one to write about daily events, and would write minor essays -
> intended as humorous - on subjects that came to mind.
>
> I pointed out that I send her emails of the same sort, and sometimes
> more often than once a week. Emails are not the same, she says. A
> letter to be picked up in the hand and read, and then put away to be
> read later, is a real thing. She's kept all those letters.
>
> I typed those letters.
Solution: next birthday get her a PC printer and a wad of paper
of distinctive colour, and suggest she print out all your emails.
Coloured paper will indicate your letters unambiguously, and
after a couple of months she can decide whether this practice
is reminiscent of the letters to college she so valued.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
R H Draney
>
>Drifting a bit...my daughter (who does not live in this area) recently
>complained - mildly - that I never send her letters anymore. When she
>was in college, I'd write her at least once a week. I've never been
>one to write about daily events, and would write minor essays -
>intended as humorous - on subjects that came to mind.
>
>I pointed out that I send her emails of the same sort, and sometimes
>more often than once a week. Emails are not the same, she says. A
>letter to be picked up in the hand and read, and then put away to be
>read later, is a real thing. She's kept all those letters.
>
>I typed those letters.
Do you ever get complaints from Sis about posting your letters to her in
AUE?...r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
Piet de Arcilla
> An interesting thought about another difference between the middle and
> working classes from Robert Crampton in today's Times. To the middle
> classes a handwritten note means one has paid personal attention to a
> matter, whereas the working classes put out a handwritten note to the
The "working class" doesn't use computers? They write notes to the
"milkman"?
Mike Page
Firstly, a lot of UK households still have daily milk deliveries. The
milkman leaves pints of milk in reusable bottles on the doorstep. Often
these deliveries take place in the early hours of the morning so the
traditional was of communicating with the milkman is through a note
written on a scrap of paper and placed in the neck of the milk bottle.
That said I have some doubts about Robert Crampton's thesis. Milk is
much cheaper in the supermarket and many working class families would
rather buy it there than run the risk of having their milk stolen by
their neighbours.
The etiquette about handwritten vs word-processed is probably changing
rapidly. A typed note was harder to produce than a handwritten one since
typing was an error prone activity and a good looking typed letter was
costly of time and effort. Where the writer clearly had a secretary the
practice of writing in the salutation and close of the letter by hand
arose, and has continued into the era of word-processing, as a way of
acknowledging acquaintance. I think a person would need to be very
unfamiliar with written communication not to realise that a hand-written
note from the PM was meant to be something special. It seems clear to me
that the whole thing has been got up by the Sun as a stick to beat
Gordon with. It is apparent that the lady's subsequent telephone
conversation with the PM was part of the same plan, and the recording of
it probably illegal.
--
Mike Page
Google me at port.ac.uk if you need to send an email.
Cheryl
> Robin wrote on Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:56:52 +0000:
>
>> An interesting thought about another difference between the
>> middle and working classes from Robert Crampton in today's
>> Times. To the middle classes a handwritten note means one has
>> paid personal attention to a matter, whereas the working
>> classes put out a handwritten note to the milkman and think
>> something more formal should be typed or printed.
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/robert_crampton/article6910135.ece
>> http://tinyurl.com/y9ahhbj
>
> My handwriting is pretty illegible and I keep it for greetings cards and
> condolences. Even for the latter, I will compose the note with a word
> processor and then copy it after finding my ink fountain pen.
>
My handwriting is getting worse and worse, either with age or with
disuse. Most people who have attempted to read it prefer that I type
anything I want to convey, and sometimes even I can't read my writing. I
also can't write for very long. When I was in high school, we wrote
three-hour exams for each subject at the end of each year, and I must
have written legibly (with correct information) because I graduated from
high school. I don't remember my hand getting tired or cramped, either,
not even after the English Literature or English Language exams.
I still feel obliged to write at least a few words in my own handwriting
on certain occasions, most commonly when I'm extending my condolences
on a death, but it's a more noticeable effort than it used to be, and I
too, find I need to draft notes first on the computer.
I discovered through friends with children aged about 12 or so that
cursive script no longer receives much emphasis in the local schools. It
is introduced, for part of one year, and not required after that so that
the children half-print and half-write even worse than I do, and of
course use computers regularly. They don't appear to do all those hours
of tedious practice with handwriting workbooks that I recall doing.
Maybe handwriting is going the way of all those other archaic skills
that are now mainly done by hobbyists.
--
Cheryl
aquachimp
> An interesting thought about another difference between the middle and
> working classes from Robert Crampton in today's Times. To the middle
> classes a handwritten note means one has paid personal attention to a
> matter, whereas the working classes put out a handwritten note to the
> --
> Robin
> (BrE)
> Herts, England
Something doesn't quite fit in there.
I do not believe that there is any absolute stereotype/universal
middle class belief that any form of hand written note emphasizes
personal attention. It would be HOW it's written and presented that
would achieve that.
It only applies when it is when written in a certain way. A hand
written letter can be given a formal style.
I will presume that legibility is an ingredient of formality. After
all what good is formality if it fails to consider it recipients.
The article doesn't actually state that the lady in question thinks
that Formal equates with Typed, though I can see how you read that
into what is written, rather than that it is the sloppy lazy scribble
that she equates with something that will do for the milkman.
But there is the crunch, because the style, evident laziness and
manner of writing chosen by the PM are hardly the hall marks of a
formal letter that the situation would demand.
the Omrud
> The etiquette about handwritten vs word-processed is probably changing
> rapidly. A typed note was harder to produce than a handwritten one since
> typing was an error prone activity and a good looking typed letter was
> costly of time and effort. Where the writer clearly had a secretary the
> practice of writing in the salutation and close of the letter by hand
> arose, and has continued into the era of word-processing, as a way of
> acknowledging acquaintance. I think a person would need to be very
> unfamiliar with written communication not to realise that a hand-written
> note from the PM was meant to be something special. It seems clear to me
> that the whole thing has been got up by the Sun as a stick to beat
> Gordon with. It is apparent that the lady's subsequent telephone
> conversation with the PM was part of the same plan, and the recording of
The recording was not illegal. It's legal for any phone conversation to
be recorded if permission is given by one of the parties. You may
record all your own calls without telling the other parties, and so can
any call centre, bank, airline, etc. What's illegal is intercepting
phone calls without the knowledge of either party (and without the
appropriate order).
I agree with you about the Sun, and from what I heard on Today, so do
many of its own readers. Furthermore, these notes were being sent
without any publicity, which gains Gordon further brownie points.
--
David
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>Mike Page wrote:
>
>> The etiquette about handwritten vs word-processed is probably changing
>> rapidly. A typed note was harder to produce than a handwritten one since
>> typing was an error prone activity and a good looking typed letter was
>> costly of time and effort. Where the writer clearly had a secretary the
>> practice of writing in the salutation and close of the letter by hand
>> arose, and has continued into the era of word-processing, as a way of
>> acknowledging acquaintance. I think a person would need to be very
>> unfamiliar with written communication not to realise that a hand-written
>> note from the PM was meant to be something special.
I think it was because it was treated as special that its scruffiness
was seen as offensive.
>>It seems clear to me
>> that the whole thing has been got up by the Sun as a stick to beat
>> Gordon with. It is apparent that the lady's subsequent telephone
>> conversation with the PM was part of the same plan, and the recording of
>
>The recording was not illegal. It's legal for any phone conversation to
>be recorded if permission is given by one of the parties. You may
>record all your own calls without telling the other parties, and so can
>any call centre, bank, airline, etc. What's illegal is intercepting
>phone calls without the knowledge of either party (and without the
>appropriate order).
>
It appears to be legal for one of the parties to tell someone else what
the other party said in a phone call (unless the content of the call is
secret or confidential).
In reporting the content of the call one TV news broadcast played the
recording of Mrs Janes speaking to Gordon Brown. His replies were spoken
by a reporter/newreader and shown on the screen. His voice was not
heard.
>I agree with you about the Sun, and from what I heard on Today, so do
>many of its own readers. Furthermore, these notes were being sent
>without any publicity, which gains Gordon further brownie points.
This is the full transcript of the phone conversation between Jennifer
Janes and Gordon Brown. It is about far more practical matters than
Gordon Brown's scruffy handwriting:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/2722106/Mum-at-war-Jacqui-Janes-the-full-transcript.html
Here is a lengthy extract:
JJ: Right, can I now just say how I feel?
GB: Yes please.
JJ: Many many years ago, in 18-something, somebody said the biggest
enemy of our Army was our Treasury... they were so right.
GB: I, I...
JJ: Even to this day..
GB: I, I...
JJ: Mr Brown, to this day, I know as fact helping my sons buy
equipment themselves before they go to war, I know of every
mother, the letters I have received off mothers whose sons have
been killed, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, you know, friends of mine
that were killed in Northern Ireland.
I know that our Government are letting our troops down, big
time.
GB: But I'm sorry I would not send anybody abroad unless I felt that
they were properly equipped and, er, what I've told the Army
chiefs that we cannot send people abroad unless we can properly
equip them.
JJ: But they're not properly equipped and we both know this.
GB: That...
JJ: Why are... then please tell me why are all the Merlins still in
this country that have since come back from Iraq?
GB: The reason the Merlins, er, came back from Iraq and are in the
country and about to go out to Afghanistan is that they have to
be completely remodelled with new blades because you cannot fly
the Merlins that were flying in Iraq in Afghanistan, which is a
different terrain, er, and, er, the height is different and the,
the temperature is different.
JJ: So what, what...
GB: The helicopter pilots have got to go to America to be trained in
the high altitude and in night light. I've been to see the
helicopters myself and I've seen how they've had to be regraded,
er, so they can actually fly in Afghanistan and you cannot take
the helicopters straight from Iraq to Afghanistan because they
need these new blades and that's, that's I'm afraid the reason
why, although three I think, are going in the next three weeks,
it's taken time to get the Iraq Merlins ready for Afghanistan.
I'm sorry that is the case but that is the reality. We had to
re-equip the helicopters to...
JJ: I know what has to be done. I have been made aware of what
needed to be done. But nobody has replaced the Chinooks that
were, erm, how can we put it, that went wrong.
GB: I, I don't I, I, I wanted to speak to you because of the
controversy, erm, that you've, erm, you've erm, obviously that
surrounded... that I had every intention of, er, of passing on
the condolences of myself and on behalf of the country. Er, er,
I'm sorry that you've taken offence about that...
JJ: I didn't take offence that you were writing me a letter of
condolence. It was the amount of spelling mistakes. It was just
like an absolute insult to my child, who, by the way, was only
20 years old.
GB: I understand that he was only 20 years old but I'm sorry I don't
think I did have spelling mistakes. My writing is maybe so badly
(muffled) that you can't read it and I'm sorry. But I have tried
to write honestly and honourably about the contributions your
son made and... (muffled) can't be read. I know from colleagues
Jamie was a brave, selfless professional soldier held in the
highest regard.
JJ: I don't need anyone to tell me how brave my son was. My son paid
the ultimate, ultimate sacrifice.
GB: OK, Miss Janes, I'm sorry, that I can't, I can't, er, satisfy
you, but I have tried my best, er, to er, show you this evening
that if there's been some misunderstanding about how my...
JJ: I do appreciate you taking the time to phone me but I'm afraid
we are going to have to, erm, disagree.
GB: Well that's that's, I, I, I know how strongly you, you feel.
JJ: No, Mr Brown, Mr Brown, listen to me... I know every injury that
my child sustained that day. I know that my son could have
survived but my son bled to death. How would you like it if one
of your children, God forbid, went to a war doing something that
he thought, where he was helping protect his Queen and country
and because of lack, LACK of helicopters, lack of equipment your
child bled to death and then you had the coroner have to tell
you his every injury?
Do you understand Mr Brown? Lack of equipment.
GB: I do understand but I think you, you have got to also understand
that I feel very strongly about this as, as you do.
JJ: So where's all the money? You can save a bank. You can put seven
whatever into saving a bank. Why not put it into the troops? We
all know they are not going to be brought home and I am glad
they are there to help.
GB: I'm sorry Miss Janes...
JJ: No, Mr Brown.
GB: I'm sorry, Miss Janes, we have tried to give the troops the
equipment they need and I have tried my best...
JJ: And failed...
GB: Well if it's not good enough for, for them they'll have to make
their own decisions but I have tried my best...
JJ: Even Army hierarchy are retiring and telling you what is going
wrong and still you send 500 more troops not the 2,000 needed.
GB: I'm sorry, I'm sorry...
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Evan Kirshenbaum
> The recording was not illegal. It's legal for any phone conversation
> to be recorded if permission is given by one of the parties. You may
> record all your own calls without telling the other parties, and so
> can any call centre, bank, airline, etc. What's illegal is
> intercepting phone calls without the knowledge of either party (and
> without the appropriate order).
I suspect that what's legal in the US varies by state, but by and
large I believe that all parties (or at least one party on each end of
the call) need to be aware that the call is being recorded. Most
customer service lines you call will start out with a recorded message
that "This call may be monitored or recorded". And patent lawyers
routinely ask me if it's okay if they record the call when taking the
description of an invention. In some states you apparently have to
(or at least had to) go further, and phones that record will often
beep every so often to remind everybody that they are recording,
although I haven't heard such beeps in a while.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If the human brain were so simple
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |That we could understand it,
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |We would be so simple
|That we couldn't.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Amethyst Deceiver
>I discovered through friends with children aged about 12 or so that
>cursive script no longer receives much emphasis in the local schools. It
>is introduced, for part of one year, and not required after that so that
>the children half-print and half-write even worse than I do, and of
>course use computers regularly. They don't appear to do all those hours
>of tedious practice with handwriting workbooks that I recall doing.
And then again... YoungBloke started school last year, at the age of 5
(well, 4, but rising 5), and the children in his class were taught
letter formation. This year, turning 6, the children have moved on to
cursive letter formation, starting off with the simple up-and-down
letters "with a flick" - i, l, then loopy letters - y, j, g, f. He's
working on more complicated letters now (big struggle with r last
week, finding k a lot easier this week). By the end of the year they
will be starting to join up some of the letters.
>Maybe handwriting is going the way of all those other archaic skills
>that are now mainly done by hobbyists.
Every year the local agricultural show has various competitions
including baking, jam-making, knitting, painting, and hand-writing for
children. YoungBloke's school always sends in Year Two's examples and
every year wins at least one prize (usually the "best school"). So,
it's still being taught here, at least.
Amethyst Deceiver
<aqua...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>The article doesn't actually state that the lady in question thinks
>that Formal equates with Typed, though I can see how you read that
>into what is written, rather than that it is the sloppy lazy scribble
>that she equates with something that will do for the milkman.
> But there is the crunch, because the style, evident laziness and
>manner of writing chosen by the PM are hardly the hall marks of a
>formal letter that the situation would demand.
The style and "evident laziness" of a man blind in one eye and with
impaired vision in the other.
Leslie Danks
And who was under no obligation to write a letter at all.
--
Les (BrE)
R H Draney
>
>And then again... YoungBloke started school last year, at the age of 5
>(well, 4, but rising 5), and the children in his class were taught
>letter formation. This year, turning 6, the children have moved on to
>cursive letter formation, starting off with the simple up-and-down
>letters "with a flick" - i, l, then loopy letters - y, j, g, f. He's
>working on more complicated letters now (big struggle with r last
>week, finding k a lot easier this week). By the end of the year they
>will be starting to join up some of the letters.
I remember having a lot of trouble with r as well, and with s...I think it's
because the method we got built all the letter out of a very small toolkit of
strokes (sweep, pull, "over", etc) and those letters required strokes that
appeared nowhere else in the repertoire....
Let us know what happens when they tell him that what looks like the number 2 is
actually a capital Q....r
James Silverton
> Amethyst Deceiver filted:
>>
>> And then again... YoungBloke started school last year, at the
>> age of 5 (well, 4, but rising 5), and the children in his
>> class were taught letter formation. This year, turning 6, the
>> children have moved on to cursive letter formation, starting
>> off with the simple up-and-down letters "with a flick" - i,
>> l, then loopy letters - y, j, g, f. He's working on more
>> complicated letters now (big struggle with r last week,
>> finding k a lot easier this week). By the end of the year
>> they will be starting to join up some of the letters.
> I remember having a lot of trouble with r as well, and with
> s...I think it's because the method we got built all the
> letter out of a very small toolkit of strokes (sweep, pull,
> "over", etc) and those letters required strokes that appeared
> nowhere else in the repertoire....
> Let us know what happens when they tell him that what looks
> like the number 2 is actually a capital Q....r
Handwritten does not necessarily imply cursive. I use Italic even if not
very well.
Roland Hutchinson
> the Omrud <usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> writes:
>
>> The recording was not illegal. It's legal for any phone conversation
>> to be recorded if permission is given by one of the parties. You may
>> record all your own calls without telling the other parties, and so can
>> any call centre, bank, airline, etc. What's illegal is intercepting
>> phone calls without the knowledge of either party (and without the
>> appropriate order).
>
> I suspect that what's legal in the US varies by state
In a word, it does.
--
Roland Hutchinson
He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )
Steve Hayes
I caught a bit of the complaints of the lady in question on Sky News, and she
seemed like a bitch, first class.
While one can feel sorry that her son died, he was under no obligation to join
the army, and presumably knew the risks when he did so.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Mike Page
accountant over this and she came up with three acts of parliament under
which it is illegal - the Telecommunications Act, the Data Protection
Act and a police and criminal evidence act. As it was an informal
occasion I wasn't able to press her for chapter and verse.
aquachimp
wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:15:36 -0800 (PST), aquachimp
>
I was referring to the attempt to make-over an error, rather then, as
the article suggests, start again. The writing itself might denote
laziness, but I hadn't thought of that at the time.
Steve Hayes
>the Omrud wrote:
>> I agree with you about the Sun, and from what I heard on Today, so do
>> many of its own readers. Furthermore, these notes were being sent
>> without any publicity, which gains Gordon further brownie points.
>>
>Are you sure? I took the opportunity to consult a leading forensic
>accountant over this and she came up with three acts of parliament under
>which it is illegal - the Telecommunications Act, the Data Protection
>Act and a police and criminal evidence act. As it was an informal
>occasion I wasn't able to press her for chapter and verse.
It's illegal to send handwritten notes?
And what has it got to do with forensing accountants?
aquachimp
But, having chosen to do so perhaps should have realised that someone
in his position should have done better.
Nick
> In reporting the content of the call one TV news broadcast played the
> recording of Mrs Janes speaking to Gordon Brown. His replies were spoken
> by a reporter/newreader and shown on the screen. His voice was not
> heard.
I didn't know we'd brought that legislation back.
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu
Nick
> Are you sure? I took the opportunity to consult a leading forensic
> accountant over this and she came up with three acts of parliament
> under which it is illegal - the Telecommunications Act, the Data
> Protection Act and a police and criminal evidence act. As it was an
> informal occasion I wasn't able to press her for chapter and verse.
I'd have thought that for, at least some of those, it depends on what
you are prepared to do with the recording. PACE in particular, surely.
Making something invalid for evidential purposes doesn't necessarily make
it illegal to do.
the Omrud
I'm sure, but I can't find references at the moment as all the online
discussion seems to be about the commercial use of phone recordings and
whether they are admissible in court.
--
David
Mark Brader
"David":
>>> I agree with you about the Sun, and from what I heard on Today, so do
>>> many of its own readers. Furthermore, these notes were being sent
>>> without any publicity, which gains Gordon further brownie points.
Mike Page:
>> Are you sure? I took the opportunity to consult a leading forensic
>> accountant over this and she came up with three acts of parliament under
>> which it is illegal...
Steve Hayes:
> It's illegal to send handwritten notes?
No, no. It's illegal to send them *without any publicity*.
Well, either that or it's illegal to gain brownie points from it.
--
Mark Brader | "If you have any problems, any at all, you come see me...
Toronto | although that would be a huge admission of failure on your part."
m...@vex.net | --Veronica, "Better Off Ted" (Becky Mann & Audra Sielaff)
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>"Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes:
>
>> In reporting the content of the call one TV news broadcast played the
>> recording of Mrs Janes speaking to Gordon Brown. His replies were spoken
>> by a reporter/newreader and shown on the screen. His voice was not
>> heard.
>
>I didn't know we'd brought that legislation back.
I'm not familiar with the legal minutiae.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
>Well, either that or it's illegal to gain brownie points from it.
Does Gordon Brown award himself brownie points?
Peter Moylan
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 05:37:47 -0600, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>
>> Well, either that or it's illegal to gain brownie points from it.
>
> Does Gordon Brown award himself brownie points?
>
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Roland Hutchinson
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 05:37:47 -0600, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>
>>Well, either that or it's illegal to gain brownie points from it.
>
> Does Gordon Brown award himself brownie points?
He has people to do that sort of thing for him.
Tyngewick
it was legal for domestic users to record without notice for their own
personal use but illegal if they intended to share the information
with a third party.[1] In the case in point it was pretty clearly
intended that the information should be shared with the Sun and its
readership (even the ones whose lips move when consulting the paper).
One unexpected bonus of the spat between Murdoch and Brown is that we
might get the Ashes back on terrestrial television.
[1] The item seems to have disappeared from the actual Ofcom site.
--
TG
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:54:01 +0100, Leslie Danks <leslie...@aon.at> wrote:
>
>>Amethyst Deceiver wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:15:36 -0800 (PST), aquachimp
>>> <aqua...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The article doesn't actually state that the lady in question thinks
>>>>that Formal equates with Typed, though I can see how you read that
>>>>into what is written, rather than that it is the sloppy lazy scribble
>>>>that she equates with something that will do for the milkman.
>>>> But there is the crunch, because the style, evident laziness and
>>>>manner of writing chosen by the PM are hardly the hall marks of a
>>>>formal letter that the situation would demand.
>>>
>>> The style and "evident laziness" of a man blind in one eye and with
>>> impaired vision in the other.
>>
>>And who was under no obligation to write a letter at all.
>
>I caught a bit of the complaints of the lady in question on Sky News, and she
>seemed like a bitch, first class.
>
She is angry.
>While one can feel sorry that her son died, he was under no obligation to join
>the army, and presumably knew the risks when he did so.
The risks are compounded by UK government failures and incompetence;
failures of the government's duty to military personnel (see note [1]).
There has been a series of problems of one sort or another for the UK
armed forces relating to the provision of military equipment.
They form the background and context of Mrs Janes' comments.
These are some that I could think of on the spur of the moment.
Aircraft -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/28/nimrod-crash-inquiry-raf-afghanistan
Fourteen British service personnel who were killed when an RAF
Nimrod spy plane crashed in Afghanistan three years ago died as a
result of "a systemic breach of the military covenant"[1], a report
said today.
The leading aviation lawyer and report author, Charles Haddon-Cave
QC, said the 1998 strategic defence review led to "financial
pressures and cuts" at the Ministry of Defence and "a dilution of
the airworthiness regime and culture within the MoD". He said that
the crash was "avoidable" but that the fate of the men was "already
sealed before the first fire warning". Addressing the Commons, the
defence secretary, Bob Ainsworth, apologised for the government's
"failure".
Helicopters -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/31/rupert-thorneloe-helicopter-shortage-afghanistan
The most senior British soldier to die in Afghanistan foreshadowed
his own death by warning that a shortage of helicopters was
endangering troops.
Less than a month before he was killed by a roadside bomb,
Lieutenant Colonel Rupert Thorneloe told his superiors that soldiers
would die because they were being forced to take more trips by road.
In a memo sent on 5 June, he said he had virtually no helicopters of
the type which would allow him to move troops by air rather than
road. "The current level of SH [support helicopter] support is
therefore unsustainable," he said.
Armoured vehicles -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/may/13/army-afghanistan-vehicle-equipment-failure
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/aug/06/ridgback-armoured-carriers-dubai
The secrecy surrounding the armour of new Ridgback armoured vehicles
destined for British troops in Afghanistan prevented them from being
deployed, defence officials said yesterday.
Nine of the armoured vehicles, designed to withstand mines and
roadside bombs, have been held back at Dubai due to a lack of RAF
C-17 transport planes to deliver them. Civilian aircraft could not
be contracted because the Ridgback's armour plating is classified.
Personal kit (clothing, etc) -
Some soldiers were deployed (to Aghanistan, I think) without clothing
suitable for the conditions. Civil servants were still in the middle of
the procurement process. Clothing etc. appropriate for a variety of
circumstnces is not kept in stock, it is purchased when needed, or in
practice, after it is needed.
Sometimes soldiers or their partents have to buy suitable clothing for
themselves. This is just one example:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209703/Mother-son-serving-Afghanistan-shells-3-000-buying-kit-poorly-equipped-Army.html
The mother of a soldier serving in Afghanistan today revealed he is
so poorly equipped she has had to shell out[2] GBP3,000 - on sending
him kit.
Proud mum Lorna Daniel, 52, has sent son Paul vests, gloves, a
sleeping bag costing GBP300, socks at GBP14 a pair, torches and
T-shirts.
She buys the kit from a surplus store at home and once spent GBP280
on new boots because his Army issue pair melted in the desert heat.
Lorna says Paul, 29, a Corporal with the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment,
needs her help because the Army doesn't issue him with enough
standard kit.
Signalman Paul, who joined the forces aged 17, is currently on the
front line on his third tour after previous operations in Northern
Ireland and Iraq.
Lorna, of Looe, Cornwall, says she has spent an average of GBP1,000
per tour on kit - meaning she and Paul's father haven't had a
holiday in years.
She said: 'The other day I spent GBP300 on a quality sleeping bag.
You have to buy one that is cool and warm when it needs to be.
[1] Military Covenant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Covenant
The Military Covenant is a term introduced into British public life
to refer to the mutual obligations between the nation and its Armed
Forces.
[2] OED:
7. shell out. colloq. (fig. from sense 1).
a. trans. To disburse, pay up, hand over.
1. trans. To remove (a seed) from its shell, husk, or pod. Also with
out.
Nick
> One unexpected bonus of the spat between Murdoch and Brown is that we
> might get the Ashes back on terrestrial television.
Indeed, if Brown has any sense he'll spend his last months in office
undoing all the things that Murdoch's patronage has encouraged him to do
up to now.
Nick
> The risks are compounded by UK government failures and incompetence;
> failures of the government's duty to military personnel (see note [1]).
>
> There has been a series of problems of one sort or another for the UK
> armed forces relating to the provision of military equipment.
> They form the background and context of Mrs Janes' comments.
It's traditional.
Skitt
> Amethyst Deceiver filted:
>> And then again... YoungBloke started school last year, at the age of
>> 5 (well, 4, but rising 5), and the children in his class were taught
>> letter formation. This year, turning 6, the children have moved on to
>> cursive letter formation, starting off with the simple up-and-down
>> letters "with a flick" - i, l, then loopy letters - y, j, g, f. He's
>> working on more complicated letters now (big struggle with r last
>> week, finding k a lot easier this week). By the end of the year they
>> will be starting to join up some of the letters.
>
> I remember having a lot of trouble with r as well, and with s...I
> think it's because the method we got built all the letter out of a
> very small toolkit of strokes (sweep, pull, "over", etc) and those
> letters required strokes that appeared nowhere else in the
> repertoire....
>
> Let us know what happens when they tell him that what looks like the
> number 2 is actually a capital Q....r
I learned a couple versions of some lowercase letters, like for r, k, p, s,
and z, as I moved from Latvia to Germany and then to the USA. I can't
remember what I was taught about capital letters. I don't do cursive these
days.
--
Skitt (AmE)
Mike Lyle
Holy Jesus! The man's the Prime Minister! In a war. With a sick economy.
With newspaper owners out to get him (even, contemptibly, using a fallen
soldier for the purpose). With a Parliamentary Party which has started
to open its own seacocks. He probably hasn't had enough sleep for months
or years. And he can still do what few if any other Prime Ministers have
ever done: write personally, just as if he were the boy's CO.
Any more stunts like this, and in spite of everything I'll vote for the
bastard.
--
Mike.
aquachimp
wrote:
> aquachimp wrote:
> > On Nov 11, 9:20 pm, Amethyst Deceiver <n...@lindsayendell.org.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:15:36 -0800 (PST), aquachimp
>
> >> <aquach...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> The article doesn't actually state that the lady in question thinks
> >>> that Formal equates with Typed, though I can see how you read that
> >>> into what is written, rather than that it is the sloppy lazy
> >>> scribble that she equates with something that will do for the
> >>> milkman.
> >>> But there is the crunch, because the style, evident laziness and
> >>> manner of writing chosen by the PM are hardly the hall marks of a
> >>> formal letter that the situation would demand.
>
> >> The style and "evident laziness" of a man blind in one eye and with
> >> impaired vision in the other.
>
> > I was referring to the attempt to make-over an error, rather then, as
> > the article suggests, start again. The writing itself might denote
> > laziness, but I hadn't thought of that at the time.
>
> Holy Jesus! The man's the Prime Minister!
Must have slipped from his mind at the time.
>In a war. With a sick economy.
You're not exactly selling his successes there you know; one might
wonder if that letter was but a small clue....
> With newspaper owners out to get him
Sounds like they're doing a better job at it... er, no hold on...
>(even, contemptibly, using a fallen
> soldier for the purpose).
Of course no plititician would ever do such a thing.
>With a Parliamentary Party which has started
> to open its own seacocks.
At this rate I suggest he has surely chosen you for a prominent role
and so your invitation to handle his PR is in the post, assuming you
get it, assuming you can read it, assuming you don't assume it's a
crank's prank and chuck it in the bin.
>He probably hasn't had enough sleep for months
> or years.
Perhaps he should take up writing exercises as a from of relaxation.
>And he can still do what few if any other Prime Ministers have
> ever done: write personally,
Write?
>just as if he were the boy's CO.
You mean they're just as bad?
>
> Any more stunts like this, and in spite of everything I'll vote for the
> bastard.
>
Stunt? Fallen soldier 'n' all?
Mike Page
overdubbed by actors.
Mike Page
> Mike Page <mike...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
>> Are you sure? I took the opportunity to consult a leading forensic
>> accountant over this and she came up with three acts of parliament
>> under which it is illegal - the Telecommunications Act, the Data
>> Protection Act and a police and criminal evidence act. As it was an
>> informal occasion I wasn't able to press her for chapter and verse.
>
> I'd have thought that for, at least some of those, it depends on what
> you are prepared to do with the recording. PACE in particular, surely.
>
> Making something invalid for evidential purposes doesn't necessarily make
> it illegal to do.
My informant said it was rather the other way round: the fact that the
data was obtained illegally didn't seem to stop her using it in court.
Mike Page
>>
>
> Stunt? Fallen soldier 'n' all?
>
aquachimp
> aquachimp wrote:
>
> > Stunt? Fallen soldier 'n' all?
>
> Absolutely. There are not depths to which the Murdoch press will not sink.
It sometimes looks like there are some who would quite contently
exploit the gift of military personal not just to sell papers, but to
make an easy and sure-fire substantial steady profit by fitting out
said personal with second grade equipment.
Recently, when I bought what I will describe as a dodgy set of
earmuffs (reviewed
http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/B000QHF97G/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful?ie=UTF8&coliid=&showViewpoints=1&colid=&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending)
I had absolutely no idea why, but I kept thinking that I hope such
utter rubbish never gets fobbed of on to the army. I have no
connection with the army, well, not the British one so I wouldn't
ordinarily have any reason for such a sense of personal concern. But
it was there, instinctively.
I have since noticed they're cheaper than similar products, but I have
no knowledge of how their performance compares. I thought I was buying
earmuffs that, according to the advert of the time, would
"electronically deaden sounds above 85Dbs". What I didn't realise was
that what "electronically deadens sound above 85Dbs" meant was that
since the speakers produced more noise at certain levels than the
equipment I was using did, when it "electronically" switched off
their own noise, the overall volumes of sound I was being exposed to
would be reduced, ergo, deadened. I now see there is a supoosedly ex-
army guy giving them a thumbs up review. Coincidence?
And that though the Office of trading standards for the area concerned
have been notified about the problems with the product, they have
never responded to me. Coincidence?
Chuck Riggs
Please do. I won't be able to enjoy the BBC news if I have to look at
that skinny-lipped weasel every night.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
the Omrud
Hang about, just a minute. Surely Mike doesn't have any rights within
the United Kingdom. How come he gets to vote?
--
David
CDB
a Brit would need to buy earmuffs, which are things we use in Canada
to keep our ears from turning black and falling off in February, but
then I saw that you must mean "headphones".
aquachimp
> aquachimp wrote:
> > Mike Page <mikeor...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >> aquachimp wrote:
>
> >>> Stunt? Fallen soldier 'n' all?
>
> >> Absolutely. There are not depths to which the Murdoch press will
> >> not sink.
>
> > It sometimes looks like there are some who would quite contently
> > exploit the gift of military personal not just to sell papers, but
> > to
> > make an easy and sure-fire substantial steady profit by fitting out
> > said personal with second grade equipment.
>
> > Recently, when I bought what I will describe as a dodgy set of
> > earmuffs (reviewed
It's an interesting one because when the item arrived and I realised
that they weren't ordinary earmuffs / ear defenders/ hearing
protectors (they're more like pseudo hearing aids) I went doing a
search for the right term and found that there would seem to be some
confusion out there as to what that should be
Headphones to me sounds like a bigger, chunkier version of what in
days gone by would have been used to listen to a Walkman radio/cassette
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
In BrE "Ear Defenders" are devices that exclude sound from outside using
passive means: sound insulation. "Electronic Ear Muffs" use active means
to cancel external sound: microphones and inverting amplifiers.
"Ear Muffs" is also a term for things that keep the ears warm.
"Headphones" is a generic term for sound output devices ranging from
in-ear buds through superaural (on the ear) to circumaural (around the
ear):
http://www.hifiheadphones.co.uk/best-headphones-top-10.html
One product on their list is: Sennheiser PXC350 Noise Cancelling
Headphones.
These provide passive noise exclusion and active noise cancellation as
well as providing sound from whatever it is plugged into.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
He's a colonial. He settled here.
the Omrud
Right, but AFAIK, he's never swapped his passport. Do we need to report
him to the Borders Agency?
--
David
aquachimp
wrote:
Ah, but the silverline product is called an "Electronic ear-defender"
not an "Electronic Ear Muffs"
At the time, I was busy ordering a couple of 'ordinary' ear defenders,
when up popped the option of the silverline one. A sort of, "people
who have ordered this item (the ordinary one I was asking for) also
bought ..." (and there I saw the Silverline one)
So at the time, having no experience of "electronic" ear defenders, I
assumed that they would be ordinary ear defenders in the sense of
providing a similar level of performance at lower level sounds, but
that _somehow_ beyond 85Dbs, the electronics would kick in to cancel
out sounds thereafter.-, though I noted the word "deaden" as opposed
to say, eliminate.
It would seem that their (Silverline) definition of "electronic" ear
defenders are ear defenders that don't really exclude external sound
at a passive level except at very, very low levels and their "active
means to cancel external sound" amounts to shutting of its speakers so
that though one is left with only its poor passive sound cancellation
abilities for protection, things did seem quieter overall compared to
when the speakers had been eagerly amplifying the noise.
>
> "Ear Muffs" is also a term for things that keep the ears warm.
>
> "Headphones" is a generic term for sound output devices ranging from
> in-ear buds through superaural (on the ear) to circumaural (around the
> ear):http://www.hifiheadphones.co.uk/best-headphones-top-10.html
>
> One product on their list is: Sennheiser PXC350 Noise Cancelling
> Headphones.
>
> These provide passive noise exclusion and active noise cancellation as
> well as providing sound from whatever it is plugged into.
Thanks for the link. I found it quite interesting.Tthey all look so
appealing; However, regarding the specific item, I
read "Optimum protection against ambient noise due to NoiseGard
Advance active noise compensation" which I will not take to include
chainsaw et all as "ambient noise" I was also left wondering where the
batteries might go.
Don Aitken
wrote:
That is correct. Evidence is evidence; the fact that it was obtained
by surreptitious, or tortious, or even criminal means, makes no
difference.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
That would be cruel. Australia would surely not let him back in now that
he has been infected by English ways.
Mike Lyle
The nationality-shifting Murdoch didn't kill the poor kid, or, I
imagine, go out to recruit the mother; but, yes, a stunt. Of course.
If you imagine I'm in some way cheerleading, you appear to have missed
the bit where I said "in spite of everything...bastard". But you can't,
surely, be unaware of a Prime Minister's workload at the best of times.
--
Mike.
Mike Lyle
Well, you could. But I doubt if it would have much effect.
--
Mike.
aquachimp
Since the general focus of your comment was about the PM, that last
sentence looked to me as if it was suggesting the "stunt" was
Gordon's. Hence my question mark.
This however might amuse you;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/nov/13/sun-apologises-misspelling-soldier
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<aqua...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Since the general focus of your comment was about the PM, that last
>sentence looked to me as if it was suggesting the "stunt" was
>Gordon's. Hence my question mark.
>This however might amuse you;
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/nov/13/sun-apologises-misspelling-soldier
I think that falls within the scope of Skitt's Law.
Peter Moylan
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:42:53 GMT, the Omrud
> <usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:29:01 GMT, the Omrud
>>> <usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hang about, just a minute. Surely Mike doesn't have any rights within
>>>> the United Kingdom. How come he gets to vote?
>>> He's a colonial. He settled here.
>> Right, but AFAIK, he's never swapped his passport. Do we need to report
>> him to the Borders Agency?
>
> That would be cruel. Australia would surely not let him back in now that
> he has been infected by English ways.
I gather that Rupert Murdoch recently visited Australia. If he can get
back in, anyone can.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Mike Lyle
> Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:42:53 GMT, the Omrud
>> <usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:29:01 GMT, the Omrud
>>>> <usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Hang about, just a minute. Surely Mike doesn't have any rights
>>>>> within the United Kingdom. How come he gets to vote?
>>>> He's a colonial. He settled here.
>>> Right, but AFAIK, he's never swapped his passport. Do we need to
>>> report him to the Borders Agency?
>>
>> That would be cruel. Australia would surely not let him back in now
>> that he has been infected by English ways.
>
> I gather that Rupert Murdoch recently visited Australia. If he can get
> back in, anyone can.
My God! I hope they counted the spoons before they let him out again.
--
Mike.
Amethyst Deceiver
wrote:
>Amethyst Deceiver filted:
>>
>>And then again... YoungBloke started school last year, at the age of 5
>>(well, 4, but rising 5), and the children in his class were taught
>>letter formation. This year, turning 6, the children have moved on to
>>cursive letter formation, starting off with the simple up-and-down
>>letters "with a flick" - i, l, then loopy letters - y, j, g, f. He's
>>working on more complicated letters now (big struggle with r last
>>week, finding k a lot easier this week). By the end of the year they
>>will be starting to join up some of the letters.
>
>I remember having a lot of trouble with r as well, and with s...I think it's
>because the method we got built all the letter out of a very small toolkit of
>strokes (sweep, pull, "over", etc) and those letters required strokes that
>appeared nowhere else in the repertoire....
>
>Let us know what happens when they tell him that what looks like the number 2 is
>actually a capital Q....r
Not likely to happen in the UK.
Evan Kirshenbaum
Rather different in the US. Here, the "exclusionary rule" says that
illegally obtained evidence may not (usually) be introduced in court.
And, further, that evidence obtained based on illegally obtained
evidence (as with evidence obtained in a search whose warrant was
granted based on illegally obtained evidence) is "fruit of the
poisonous tree" and is also inadmissible unless
(1) it was discovered in part as a result of an independent,
untainted source; (2) it would inevitably have been discovered
despite the tainted source; or (3) the chain of causation between
the illegal action and the tainted evidence is too attenuated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
In
http://tinyurl.com/yl3femx
<URL:http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/
crimpro/crimpro07.htm>
these three exceptions are described as (1) "the independent source
doctrine", (2) "the inevitable discovery rule", and (3) "the
attenuated connection principle". EnglishUsagely, it's interesting
that they each get a different noun.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |There is no such thing as bad data,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |only data from bad homes.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Robert Bannister
> My handwriting is getting worse and worse, either with age or with
> disuse. Most people who have attempted to read it prefer that I type
> anything [snip]
> Maybe handwriting is going the way of all those other archaic skills
> that are now mainly done by hobbyists.
>
I blame it on computers. The only things I write by hand these days are
my signature (very rarely, since even that can be faxed) and shopping
lists. The other day I had to ask three shopkeepers to attempt to
decipher one item on my list. It didn't help that it was misspelt so it
wasn't margarine, mayonnaise, nor even magnolias, but marjoram.
--
Rob Bannister
Arcadian Rises
> An interesting thought about another difference between the middle and
> working classes from Robert Crampton in today's Times. �To the middle
> classes a handwritten note means one has paid personal attention to a
> matter, whereas the working classes put out a handwritten note to the
> milkman and think something more formal should be typed or printed.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/robert_crampton/a...http://tinyurl.com/y9ahhbj
> --
> Robin
> (BrE)
> Herts, England
Out of the goodness of my heart I give you the following tip:
If you need to ask a favor from a bureaucrat and you do it in writing,
handwrite! Do it very neatly and clear and the bureaucrat will assume
you don't have a word processor, not even a typewriter, and will read
your letter and shift into a generous mood.
Suppose you get a handwritten letter, carefully crafted with
paragraphs and all that, would you feel about the sender?
Chuck Riggs
Good handwriting will remain with us for many years to come, I think.
Because, does receiving a computer-generated personal letter even
compare to reading one written in the personal hand of your friend,
lover or relative?
Chuck Riggs
<Arcadi...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Nov 10, 4:56?pm, Robin Bignall <docro...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> An interesting thought about another difference between the middle and
>> working classes from Robert Crampton in today's Times. ?To the middle
>> classes a handwritten note means one has paid personal attention to a
>> matter, whereas the working classes put out a handwritten note to the
>> milkman and think something more formal should be typed or printed.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/robert_crampton/a...http://tinyurl.com/y9ahhbj
>> --
>> Robin
>> (BrE)
>> Herts, England
>
>Out of the goodness of my heart I give you the following tip:
>
>If you need to ask a favor from a bureaucrat and you do it in writing,
>handwrite! Do it very neatly and clear and the bureaucrat will assume
>you don't have a word processor, not even a typewriter, and will read
>your letter and shift into a generous mood.
>
>Suppose you get a handwritten letter, carefully crafted with
>paragraphs and all that, would you feel about the sender?
I'd think he or she was a stand-out person who deserved my attention.
Robin Bignall
wrote:
I thought that there was a discussion underway at the moment about
evidence from tapped phones not being able to be used in English
courts. Or is that just in terrorism cases to protect the sources?
Robert Bannister
I tend not to read letters whatever form they are written in if they're
more than a couple of paragraphs long. Lovers' letters would perhaps be
an exception, but I'm getting a bit old for that. Found a copy of my
great grandfather's writing once - genuine copperplate stuff - looked
beautiful, but very hard to read.
--
Rob Bannister
Peter Moylan
A few years ago a group of Chinese visitors to our university was
passing around an old postcard that one of them had found. They were
enthusing about the beauty of the calligraphy, with comments like
"nobody writes as well as that any more".
Inevitably, somebody asked what the Chinese characters meant. The
answer: "We don't know; we can't read it".
Chuck Riggs
<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
If his script was beautiful, why was it hard to read?
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
<snip>
>A few years ago a group of Chinese visitors to our university was
>passing around an old postcard that one of them had found.
Although technically correct, that "was" smacked me in the face. The
plural "visitors" was why, of course.
<snip>
Cheryl
>> I tend not to read letters whatever form they are written in if they're
>> more than a couple of paragraphs long. Lovers' letters would perhaps be
>> an exception, but I'm getting a bit old for that. Found a copy of my
>> great grandfather's writing once - genuine copperplate stuff - looked
>> beautiful, but very hard to read.
>
> If his script was beautiful, why was it hard to read?
Possibly because of the beautiful but unfamiliar flourishes with which
the letters were formed, or the unfamiliar basic formation of some of them.
I saw a scan of some pages from an old diary (18th century, I think)
which was being transcribed into a computer in order to prepare a print
version. I don't think I could have read the original at all, although
in that case I think the handwriting was just bad, and the illegibility
wasn't entirely due to the unfamiliar style. I've often had difficult
reading unfamiliar styles of handwriting, though, and sometimes I can
tell from the regularity of the letters that it's good handwriting, just
hard for someone unfamiliar with the style to read.
--
Cheryl
erilar
Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net> wrote:
> If his script was beautiful, why was it hard to read?
> --
I can guess: changing conventions? Because my German is fluent and I
can read old German texts, I have been asked to read old handwriting and
cannot make head nor tail of it.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Skitt
> Robert Bannister wrote:
>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>>>> Cheryl wrote:
>>>>> My handwriting is getting worse and worse, either with age or with
>>>>> disuse. Most people who have attempted to read it prefer that I
>>>>> type anything [snip]
>>>>> Maybe handwriting is going the way of all those other archaic
>>>>> skills that are now mainly done by hobbyists.
>>>>
>>>> I blame it on computers. The only things I write by hand these
>>>> days are my signature (very rarely, since even that can be faxed)
>>>> and shopping lists. The other day I had to ask three shopkeepers
>>>> to attempt to decipher one item on my list. It didn't help that it
>>>> was misspelt so it wasn't margarine, mayonnaise, nor even
>>>> magnolias, but marjoram.
>>>
>>> Good handwriting will remain with us for many years to come, I
>>> think. Because, does receiving a computer-generated personal letter
>>> even compare to reading one written in the personal hand of your
>>> friend, lover or relative?
>>
>> I tend not to read letters whatever form they are written in if
>> they're more than a couple of paragraphs long. Lovers' letters would
>> perhaps be an exception, but I'm getting a bit old for that. Found a
>> copy of my great grandfather's writing once - genuine copperplate
>> stuff - looked beautiful, but very hard to read.
>
> If his script was beautiful, why was it hard to read?
My late father, a lawyer, had handwriting that was very consistent and
stylish, yet, it was very difficult to read without a lot of practice.
My own handwriting has deteriorated completely, as I never use it. I
learned to print early in my engineering courses in college. I used to
write quite clearly, but with a slight back-slant -- something frowned upon
in penmanship classes in school.
--
Skitt (AmE)
Frank ess
At the request of my few correspondents I practiced printing letters
home from the Air Force. I got to be pretty quick at it - never as
fast as cursive, but much more intelligible.
(Have I told this story here before?) In 1960 I was part of an
experiment in a psychology class: the instructor showed upside-down
and reversed images of handwriting for half a second; we subjects were
to assign "beauty" ratings to the handwriting samples, on a
one-to-seven scale.
Turned out the samples had been taken from a "bluebook quiz" of a week
or two earlier in the class. Defining "objective" as average ratings
by all members of the class, the trend was to rate the beauty of one's
own handwriting reasonably objectively.
A second measure, seems to me it was the Taylor Manifest Anxiety
Scale, showed higher anxiety, lower likelihood of "objective"
self-ratings.
I saw one handwriting sample as having been printed. It was my own,
and was not printed, but scrawled in my usual near-unintelligible
cursive. Half-a-second, upside-down, backwards - and I recognized it.
And rated it less-than-beautiful, within tenths of a point of the
"objective beauty" score. Amazing.
--
Frank ess
James Silverton
I used to take notes in what was essentially Italic and I was just as
fast as those using cursive. I had a friend who took notes and wrote
papers and tests in printed letters and he was equally fast.
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
Robin Bignall
<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
Even a hand-written "Dear John" letter would be nice once in a while,
if only to prove that one is still alive.
Don Aitken
There has long been a body of opinion which wants to see intercepted
communications used in evidence. AFAIK there is no legal reason why
they could not be. The reason they are not is that the parties to the
case would be entitled to know how, by whom, and in what circumstances
they were intercepted, as well as to see the full context of the
material it was sought to introduce, and to cross-examined the persons
involved with the interception. The security services are absolutely
determined that that will not happen; they would much rather do
without the evidence than have their doings and misdoings gone into.
Peter Moylan
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:14:21 +1100, Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> A few years ago a group of Chinese visitors to our university was
>> passing around an old postcard that one of them had found.
>
> Although technically correct, that "was" smacked me in the face. The
> plural "visitors" was why, of course.
When writing that I had to ponder long and hard on the "was" vs "were"
question. It's one of the tricky ones.
Peter Moylan
My last "Dear John" letter came by e-mail, and that was from someone who
doesn't even like using her computer. The days of handwritten mail
appear to be almost over.
I did get a short handwritten letter from a friend a month or so ago,
but it was written on the back of a used envelope because she didn't
have a writing pad.
Richard Chambers
> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:14:21 +1100, Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> A few years ago a group of Chinese visitors to our university was
>>> passing around an old postcard that one of them had found.
>>
>> Although technically correct, that "was" smacked me in the face. The
>> plural "visitors" was why, of course.
>
> When writing that I had to ponder long and hard on the "was" vs "were"
> question. It's one of the tricky ones.
I would have used "were"in this case. If the group had all been doing the
same thing in unison, like a swarm of bees flying as a body from A to B,
"was" would have been appropriate. But in this case they are not acting as a
body. One Chinese visitor is passing the old postcard on, and another is
receiving it. You are thinking of the individual members within the group,
and "were" is appropriate. The phrase "one of them" is another clue that you
are thinking about the Chinese as individuals, not as a homogenous group.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Robert Bannister
Have you ever seen (reproductions of) old Carolingian manuscripts? Same
thing: beautiful to look at, impossible or at least very difficult to read.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> In article <7t55g55pbf8qi65oc...@4ax.com>,
> Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> If his script was beautiful, why was it hard to read?
>> --
>
> I can guess: changing conventions? Because my German is fluent and I
> can read old German texts, I have been asked to read old handwriting and
> cannot make head nor tail of it.
>
I can still read it. The last time I was asked to translate a something
written like that was quite funny - it took me quite a long time because
of the unfamiliar use of words, which I took to be a sign of antiquity,
but in the end, it turned out to be a sort of religious pyramid scheme -
pass this on to ten more people or die a horrible death. I don't think
the family, who had been rather proud of the ancestor, were all that
pleased.
--
Rob Bannister
Steve Hayes
>My last "Dear John" letter came by e-mail, and that was from someone who
>doesn't even like using her computer. The days of handwritten mail
>appear to be almost over.
>
>I did get a short handwritten letter from a friend a month or so ago,
>but it was written on the back of a used envelope because she didn't
>have a writing pad.
My last hard copy letter (typed) was to someone whose e-mail had bounced.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
John Varela
wrote:
> If his script was beautiful, why was it hard to read?
I have a diary that was written by one of my mother's aunts when she
was 16 years old in 1886. The handwriting is beautiful, and I'm
sure the substance would be mildly interesting once one got past the
Victorian teenager fluff, but the paper has yellowed and the ink has
faded so that it's very hard to read.
--
John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email
Steve Hayes
>There has long been a body of opinion which wants to see intercepted
>communications used in evidence. AFAIK there is no legal reason why
>they could not be. The reason they are not is that the parties to the
>case would be entitled to know how, by whom, and in what circumstances
>they were intercepted, as well as to see the full context of the
>material it was sought to introduce, and to cross-examined the persons
>involved with the interception. The security services are absolutely
>determined that that will not happen; they would much rather do
>without the evidence than have their doings and misdoings gone into.
If they want to use such thigns as evidence, they would need to have got a
court order to intercept them.
But their secretiveness extends to their own bosses. In my own secret police
file (of which the photocopy fills two lever arch files) there is frequent
reference to "a sensitive source" ('n delikate bron). The files are not the
actual files they kept on people, but reports that they sent to their bosses
at the Department of Justice, so they are basically a summary of the content.
Even though the Department of Justice files are marked "Secret" and "Top
Secret", the spooks didn't trust their bosses to keep them that way -- which,
of course, they didn't. The SB and other government departments responsible
for dirty tricks spent the early months of 1994 shredding the evidence of
their deeds, but their bosses neglected to do so.
Arcadian Rises
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:52:02 +0800, Robert Bannister wrote:
[...]
>> Found a copy of my
> >great grandfather's writing once - genuine copperplate stuff - looked
> >beautiful, but very hard to read.
>
> If his script was beautiful, why was it hard to read?
You can make a similar case about real writing that is not
calligraphy:
e.g. "Beowulf" is a beautiful writing (it's just an arbitrary example,
OK ?) but very hard to read.
James Hogg
The Beowulf manuscript is very neat, with all the letters separated.
Once you learn the ten or so strange characters it's no problem to read
it (although you might not understand what it means). You
never have to wonder what a letter is supposed to be.
http://omgihateblackboard.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/beowulflge.jpg
Script from later periods is far more difficult to read, even
though the language is much closer to ours:
http://www.humi.keio.ac.jp/~matsuda/graphic/closeup/118k0001s01w.jpg
http://www.english.cam.ac.uk/ceres/ehoc/images/introphotos/scribal.jpg
--
James
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
>On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:33:05 UTC, Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net>
>wrote:
>
>> If his script was beautiful, why was it hard to read?
>
>I have a diary that was written by one of my mother's aunts when she
>was 16 years old in 1886. The handwriting is beautiful, and I'm
>sure the substance would be mildly interesting once one got past the
>Victorian teenager fluff, but the paper has yellowed and the ink has
>faded so that it's very hard to read.
Sometimes, just sometimes, it can help to make images of the pages which
can then be "photoshopped" to become more readable. With something like
a diary with many pages I'd first experiment with a digital camera
rather than laboriously using a flatbed scanner.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
James Silverton
>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:33:05 UTC, Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If his script was beautiful, why was it hard to read?
>>
>> I have a diary that was written by one of my mother's aunts
>> when she was 16 years old in 1886. The handwriting is
>> beautiful, and I'm sure the substance would be mildly
>> interesting once one got past the Victorian teenager fluff,
>> but the paper has yellowed and the ink has faded so that it's
>> very hard to read.
> Sometimes, just sometimes, it can help to make images of the
> pages which can then be "photoshopped" to become more
> readable. With something like a diary with many pages I'd
> first experiment with a digital camera rather than laboriously
> using a flatbed scanner.
I'm interested that no-one seems to have mentioned a "holograph will"
,written in one's own handwriting and not requiring to be witnessed.
These are legal in some US states and in Scotland. I believe.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>Chuck Riggs wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:14:21 +1100, Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> A few years ago a group of Chinese visitors to our university was
>>> passing around an old postcard that one of them had found.
>>
>> Although technically correct, that "was" smacked me in the face. The
>> plural "visitors" was why, of course.
>
>When writing that I had to ponder long and hard on the "was" vs "were"
>question. It's one of the tricky ones.
When pondering such questions I often enunciate the sentence out loud.
Like you, I found this one tricky since the verbal test led me to the
wrong answer, undoubtedly because "visitors" is closer to the verb
than "group" is.
Chuck Riggs
<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
If old Carolingian is the style used in the Book of Kells, I find it
beautiful but not at all easy to read. The Irish monks of the ninth
century apparently had no problem with it, so other literate people of
the time probably didn't either.
Skitt
> I'm interested that no-one seems to have mentioned a "holograph will"
> ,written in one's own handwriting and not requiring to be witnessed.
> These are legal in some US states and in Scotland. I believe.
Yes, a holographic will is legal in more than half of the states. My dad
had one.
--
Skitt (AmE)
Mark Brader
>> I'm interested that no-one seems to have mentioned a "holograph will"
>> ,written in one's own handwriting and not requiring to be witnessed.
>> These are legal in some US states and in Scotland. I believe.
"Skitt":
> Yes, a holographic will is legal in more than half of the states.
I am reminded of the entry that I remember seeing in the Guinness Book
of World Records for the "world's shortest will". A farmer, mortally
wounded in a tractor accident, wrote a will by scratching the words in
the side of the tractor. What it meant was "All to wife", but this was
Czechoslovakia and in Czech it was only two words, totaling 7 letters.
It was accepted as legally valid.
--
Mark Brader | In order that there may be no doubt as to which is the
Toronto | bottom and which is the top ... the bottom of each
m...@vex.net | warhead [will] immediately be labeled with the word TOP.
--British Admiralty regulation, c.1968
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Robert Bannister
I often wonder about that. My pet theory is that the monks simply copied
manuscripts and were unable to read them, which accounts for the
numerous errors.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
Excellent examples. What really makes the Beowulf stand out from
medieval manuscripts is the separation into words.
--
Rob Bannister
John Varela
Good suggestion. I might do that to while away some of the coming
winter days indoors.
Richard Bollard
Why, because they now knew why he died such a horrible death?
--
Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia
To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT.
Chuck Riggs
<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
Well, somebody could read them, and my money is on the monks.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> James Silverton:
>>> I'm interested that no-one seems to have mentioned a "holograph
>>> will" ,written in one's own handwriting and not requiring to be
>>> witnessed. These are legal in some US states and in Scotland. I
>>> believe.
>
> "Skitt":
>> Yes, a holographic will is legal in more than half of the states.
>
> I am reminded of the entry that I remember seeing in the Guinness
> Book of World Records for the "world's shortest will". A farmer,
> mortally wounded in a tractor accident, wrote a will by scratching
> the words in the side of the tractor. What it meant was "All to
> wife", but this was Czechoslovakia and in Czech it was only two
> words, totaling 7 letters. It was accepted as legally valid.
Doesn't a holographic will typically need to be signed? What if what
happened was that the farmer died before he was able to scratch
"except for the car, which goes to Lulu down at the strip club in
town?"
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Of course, over the first 10^-10
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |seconds and 10^-30 cubic
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |centimeters it averages out to
|zero, but when you look in
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |detail....
(650)857-7572 | Philip Morrison
James Hogg
> James Silverton:
>>> I'm interested that no-one seems to have mentioned a "holograph
>>> will" ,written in one's own handwriting and not requiring to be
>>> witnessed. These are legal in some US states and in Scotland. I
>>> believe.
>
> "Skitt":
>> Yes, a holographic will is legal in more than half of the states.
>
> I am reminded of the entry that I remember seeing in the Guinness
> Book of World Records for the "world's shortest will". A farmer,
> mortally wounded in a tractor accident, wrote a will by scratching
> the words in the side of the tractor. What it meant was "All to
> wife", but this was Czechoslovakia and in Czech it was only two
> words, totaling 7 letters. It was accepted as legally valid.
Apparently Tausch wrote the words "v�e �ene" on the bedroom wall. The story
has been conflated with one about a Canadian farmer who scratched a
slightly longer will on his tractor:
http://amazines.com/article_detail.cfm?articleid=1031729
--
James
James Silverton
>> James Silverton:
>>>> I'm interested that no-one seems to have mentioned a
>>>> "holograph will" ,written in one's own handwriting and not
>>>> requiring to be witnessed. These are legal in some US
>>>> states and in Scotland. I believe.
>>
>> "Skitt":
>>> Yes, a holographic will is legal in more than half of the
>>> states.
>>
>> I am reminded of the entry that I remember seeing in the
>> Guinness Book of World Records for the "world's shortest
>> will". A farmer, mortally wounded in a tractor accident,
>> wrote a will by scratching the words in the side of the
>> tractor. What it meant was "All to wife", but this was
>> Czechoslovakia and in Czech it was only two words, totaling 7
>> letters. It was accepted as legally valid.
> Doesn't a holographic will typically need to be signed? What
> if what happened was that the farmer died before he was able
> to scratch "except for the car, which goes to Lulu down at the
> strip club in town?"
I don't know the details of holographic wills around the world but I
happen to know that, in Scotland, it must be signed. As Evan says, it
would seem to be necessary. Even if such wills are no longer legal in
England, someone domiciled in Scotland can still make a legal
holographic will that is applicable in England.
Incidentally, the term "holograph will" is quite commonly used instead
of "holographic will". The Google counts were 21 000 to 58 000.